Actresses realise they no longer need Woody Allen's help

A number of young actresses, formerly cast by Woody Allen in one of his films, have searched their consciences and come to the difficult and painful realisation they no longer need his help with their careers.

"You have to understand, back then no one had heard of me," said Greta Gerwig, who starred in Allen's To Rome With Love. "I couldn't get arrested. When Woody called the diner where I was waitressing, I said yes before he'd told me the name of the film."

"But now I'm quite well known, being offered decent parts on a regular basis, and I've just remembered all those allegations his ex-wife made about him decades ago. And this was during a very bitter custody battle, so she wouldn't have any reason to lie."

"I searched my conscience, by which I mean I called my agent and he said in the current climate I stood to gain a lot more by publicly saying I wouldn't work with Allen again. So he'd better not call and offer me another part. Which he hasn't."

Her sentiments were echoed by Rebecca Hall, daughter of famous director Sir Peter Hall (oh, but why do people have to keep bringing that up?)

"Sure, Woody gave me my first major film role in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, which really helped launch my career," said Peter Hall's daughter (there you go again...) "But people must understand, I was very anxious about accepting it, given the allegations against him. So much so that years later, when he offered me a small part in A Rainy Day In New York, I hesitated a bit before saying yes."

"Then my agent said this probably didn't look great, and I'd better donate my salary for the film to Time's Up. Luckily it was just a single day's filming, so it was hardly any money. In fact, it might be the cheapest good publicity I've ever bought."

"Exactly," agreed Mira Sorvino. "Sure, Woody gave me the part for which I won an Oscar in Mighty Aphrodite, at a time when no one else would hire me because of the rumours Harvey Weinstein had started about me. But what the hell, I can see the way the wind's blowing, and frankly I don't have a career now anyway..."

Seriously? FP? No offence to your writing YaBasta, as it's well written, and I take it you are defending someone's right to be innocent before proven guilty, which is noble, but you're repeating that very one-sided custody battle defence line without reference to Dylan's fairly robust argument that this defence is a stretch of the truth.

While a one-sided narrative might be fine satire for dodgy politicians, say, where if you're wrong all you've done is defame a dodgy politician who can probably stand up for himself. Is it fine when you're either defending a cruelly maligned innocent man, or defending an unrepentant child-molester who abused a 7-year-old girl?

Benvoleo, I'm really taking aim at the actresses here. They all worked with Allen long after these allegations were made, and would certainly have known about them. Maybe they took the view that, since they couldn't possibly know the truth, they'd give Allen the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they thought that since not one but two states had investigated the case for 14 months, and neither had filed charges, they could be confident there was nothing in it - especially since, as I mentioned, the allegations were made during a custody battle, and there were famously a lot of irregularities (eg Dylan's account of events initially being quite different from her mother's, until they were allowed to spend some time alone together, after which they agreed in every detail).

But for whatever reason, these actresses agreed to work with Allen, in Rebecca Hall's case twice. For them to throw him under the bus now, not because any new information has come to light, but solely because the political climate has shifted and they see an advantage in doing so, is incredibly cheap and spineless of them. (Of course, this applies just as much to Timothee Chalamet, but he hadn't yet done it when I wrote the article).

Personally I wouldn't go and see a Mia Farrow film, but then Hollywood seems to have made that decision for me :-)

I appreciate the target of the piece, while I disagree with your idea of who is the victim here, that is a whole different argument to the one I'm making. You are providing the argument of an alleged child molester, without the counter argument of the alleged victim...which is in my view very, very wrong. Not far off apologism for paedophilia sort of wrong.

FP - front page...as in 'apparently, I write for a magazine that puts the endorsement of the defendants argument in a case of alleged paedophilia on its front page without representing the argument of the alleged victim. I hope that isn't a reflection on me.'

And I hoped you'd ask for the line to be removed. But you've gone and done it again, asserting the defence line that there were famously a lot of irregularities, without representing the alleged victims argument that she was a child of 7 who said she was touched on the shoulder because she thought it was rude, and therefore wrong, to make reference to her private parts. Neither have you considered what the judge decided in his custody decision, and that the judge didn't think her allegations should be dismissed due to this.

I'm with YB on this. There is the faint smell of a gravy train (not necessarily financial) in the background and there seems more than a slight irony in the choice of the sometimes thoughtlessly-used phrase 'me too'.

I also meant to say that, having had her own career destroyed by an unsubstantiated rumour, Mira Sorvino especially should know better.

In any case, my point is that no new information has come to light which could persuade someone of Allen's guilt when they had previously thought him innocent, or given him the benefit of the doubt. These actresses have changed their tunes purely because the political climate around them has changed, and they see an advantage in doing so, which makes them about as principled as weathervanes. That, and that alone, is what the article is saying. I don't take a position on Allen's guilt or innocence, because like everyone else I can't possibly know, though I will say that the seriousness of what he's accused of doesn't reverse the burden of proof.

The article distinctly says: “I've just remembered all those allegations his ex-wife made about him decades ago. And this was during a very bitter custody battle, so she wouldn't have any reason to lie.”

So albeit the article might not have dwelt on this, it certainly says it. It represents, I’d say, about a tenth of the article. If it’s not what the article should be saying, you have to take it out, otherwise the article is categorically saying this.

I don't take a position on Allen's guilt or innocence

There is a clear implication in your piece that she and Dylan are lying, I’d argue you’ve taken a position on that basis alone.

Regardless, you definitely do take a position when you mention doubts cast on her testimony, but omit her view regarding the invalidity of these doubts.

You’re selling his story.

doesn't reverse the burden of proof

There is an argument that, considering the evidence in the case, he wouldn’t go to jail on the criminal burden of ‘innocent before proven guilty’.

I’m certainly not asking you to reverse the burden and find him guilty before proven innocent!

But, the burden of proof being discussed her is not a criminal burden, but a civil one, a lesser one: ‘on the balance of probabilities’.

And, I’m not asking you to find against him on the balance of probabilities, or even echo a one-sided case against him.

However you don’t respect any burden of proof by repeating, unchallenged, his defence line.

All I’m asking is you don’t echo a one-sided rebuttal of the allegations of a 7-year-old alleged victim of paedophilia.

So you could add something to balance, or just delete these 17 words: "And this was during a very bitter custody battle, so she wouldn't have any reason to lie".

Which shouldn’t present a problem for you if the article is saying something other than this, and something other than this alone.

Jeff - every time I make my point with regard, purely, to child sex allegations, someone appears to conflate this with the broader #metoo movement and the hypocrisy they find within.

So I find myself compelled to try to explain how they are separate issues, and the implications of conflating them.

I don't suppose that anyone on here is an apologist for paedophilia. I just think they are unable to see that this is what it sounds like. I'm surprised if people are ok with it sounding like this, but baulk at stopping it sounding like this with a small edit that probably reflects their values anyway.

If I sound nasty, it's not intentional - maybe I lack the tact to calmly cover an emotive issue I feel strongly about. I suppose I'm verbose because I'm exasperated that I don't have the talent to put my point across succinctly - each time I try, someone responds with reference to a completely different argument than the one I am making.

I don't have the skill to draft a Woody Allen joke that doesn't conflate the two issues, but does reflect the circumstances, and is still funny.